Anders Breivik the white Mandela

It’s been a week since the most notorious modern day mass murderer on Norwegian soil has been sentenced to 21 years, the maximum sentence the Norwegian state could offer. Given the severe nature of Breivik’s crimes – the killing of 77 innocent citizens – there would be little doubt that had the Nordic state recognised the death penalty, he would have been incarcerated in a cell next to the gallows, awaiting his final ordeal. Legal experts and various news makers from all over the world would have concurred that a sentence of death would have been apposite.

Throughout the entire hearing he did not cease from flaunting his extreme ideals in the courtroom, hoisting his fist to his chest and raising it in the air, saluting an ideal not entirely clear to us. He considered himself to be at one with his ideals that were thoroughly elaborated in his 1500 page manifesto, and refused to appeal the sentence after it was passed.

The overwhelming reaction to Breivik is shock, disgust and contempt. Yet underneath, he managed to attract a scant number of admirers, if one were to take a look at certain news excerpts. French author Richard Millet appears to be the first in line to be seduced by his skill to “write marvellously well” and his “questionable ideas [that] do not reduce his literary qualities”. The Italian Euro politician Mario Borghezio landed himself in hot water when he stated forthright that Breivik had some “excellent ideas”.

One could argue that it is human nature to seek what is hidden, to peek behind the mask of public opinion. Noblemen are scrutinised for their frailties and ignominy, while thieves and murderers are subject to sympathy once they open up and reveal a dram of victimhood. In Breivik’s case however, he exudes a certain strength and an unfailing belief in what he did. One could argue that his admirers are in a way attracted to the strength of his conviction, as if some primitive mechanism drives people to seek the strong. Strength after all is protection, and protection is security. Instead of being a hothead or displaying incoherent ramblings, his comportment reveals a calm and collected man, well in control of his thoughts, actions and words. Here we see a perfect alignment between high ideals, actions and the most basic emotions mankind possesses: a condition we call charisma.

We saw this same thing happening earlier.

Fortunately for many South Africans at that time, Nelson Mandela was thwarted from committing a similar yet much larger onslaught in South Africa. After having been found guilty of manufacturing enough explosive material for 210 000 hand grenades, 48 000 anti-personnel mines, 1500 timers, 144 tonnes of ammonium nitrate, 21.6 tonnes of aluminium powder and one tonne of black powder, he was sentenced to life long imprisonment, just barely escaping death row. In a ghastly similarity, legal experts from all over attended the Rivonia trials, stating the death penalty would have been justified. The onslaught he helped facilitate had already started, and the government could not stop all his acts of terrorism, downplayed to sabotage. Various factories government facilities, newspapers and people were targeted and assailed with pipe bombs.

Once he was arrested and placed in the docks, he refused to be sworn in and could therefore not be cross-examined, but his writings were unequivocal in their meaning. In his essay “How to be a good Communist” whom he claimed was written by someone else even though he couldn’t identify that particular person, he supported a campaign of ruthless elimination of all traitors and informers. Neither did he shy away from cutting off the noses of those impimpis who dare cross the line. (Interestingly, in recent google searches of How to be a good Communist, the “eliminate” sentence itself seems to have been eliminated.)

What has remained of all this is clear to see. All through the eighties, Mandela refused to call his people to order, countenancing the savage necklace killings and people’s war in the townships, while “signing off” the Church Street bomb in 1983 that killed 19 and injured 200 people, black and white. Mandela was awarded The Nobel Peace Prize by the selfsame people who locked up Breivik, even though Mandela never swore himself to peace, right up to this day. However, Mandela’s sympathisers and fellow activists also recalled his calm and sober demeanour during his protracted trial, masterfully deluding people into buying his good intentions, not much different to Breivik apparently.

With the help of his connections within the ANC and communist agents across the world, he managed to turn the tidal wave in his favour. He is nowadays considered as one of the world’s most revered men and his actions justified. His country has unfortunately little to show for it except for debasement, extreme poverty, farm murders and self-serving tenderpreneurs. Babyrapes, muti murders and other superstitious practices are all part of daily life. Savagery is considered civil and civil is the new savagery. All the while, politicians and their juiced-in friends are leeching off the state coffers and taxpayers are considered as no more than charity workers for the rich.

Yet, regardless of this, Mandela’s integrity is beyond question, proving how the amazing power of conviction could outlast any factual proof. The Age of Reason has passed and the Age of Sentiment has taken its place, beaming its brave new world into the living room of every spoiled child and misguided adult.

People have a remarkably short-term memory when it comes to politics, as Mandela’s life has taught us. It is plausible to assume that Mandela was not up to an urban lifestyle when he first came to Johannesburg, feeling the pressure of being a nobody while descending from Xhosa aristocracy back home. Did this cognitive dissonance propel him into politics?

Conversely, Breivik hails from a homogeneous nation, and as many foreigners in Norway can attest, the Norwegians are far from worldly in their approach, shamelessly discriminating against those who are not of their own. The well-laid rules and codes that commanded Norwegian life for so long are now challenged by the foreign born and many Norwegians are feeling the same pressure.

Only time will tell where Breivik will end up over 21 years, should he still be alive by then. His firm conviction and the changing demographics of Norway may possibly serve him.

However, between Breivik and Mandela there is a much larger yet hidden battle going on of which they are nothing more but its ramifications. It is the nationalists versus the internationalists. The handlers of the nation state versus the handlers of the world’s richest enterprises. The internationalists seem to be winning, with Mandela acting as their pied piper and the sheeple following in blind obedience. Breivik on the other hand is their bogeyman. Similarly, Hitler’s killing spree of 6 million Jews is seen as a stark warning against any form of nationalist upsurges, while the 100 million victims of communism is all but forgotten and didn’t even make it to the courtroom.

We live in a world where justice itself has become an object of questioning. No longer is it a matter of right and wrong, but which is the lesser of the two evils, since justice also has a nasty habit of following the money.

Perhaps in the end we could only rest ourselves in the words of historian Carroll Quigley when he wrote: “I have objected to a few of [the international Anglophile network’s] policies but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.”

Should their role be known, however, the centuries of injustice they masterminded would spill out for all to see, and Mandela’s true empire builders will scatter like vampires in the sun, seeking that last bit of shadow to cower behind along with their dirty little tricks.

And that may just be the opportunity that Breivik is secretly waiting for.